Posted
by
kdawson
on Tuesday June 26, 2007 @07:15PM
from the in-loco-prosecutor dept.

Several readers let us know that the University of Washington has announced that it will pass on RIAA settlement offer letters to students identified, presumably by IP address, as suspected file sharers. "The notices say offending students have 20 days to settle with the association by paying it about $3,000 to $5,000 or be taken to court without possibility of a settlement." The Vice Provost for Student Life sent an email to all students saying, "The University has been notified by the RIAA that we will be receiving a number of these early settlement letters. After careful consideration, we have decided to forward the letters to the alleged copyright violators."

It's a scare tactic. They lose out WAY more money paying their lawyers than they will ever recover. You think once they get a judgment for $5,000 the will ever collect that? No way. The RIAA is losing money suing people. The only reason they do it is to scare people. All they have to do is go around and ruin a few hundred college students lives by ruining their credit before they are 25 and people might stop downloading. It's pathetic that it comes to this. They place their bottom line over anything

Said students perhaps shouldn't be pirating music then, hmm? There's lots of ways to get DRM-free music (often of high quality too) for cheap or free legally.

...and if you get hit in spite of not pirating? The wonders of DHCP coupled with the notoriously insecure networks that most colleges run* tend to make it drop-easy for innocents to get snagged by this dragnet of theirs.

Given that a typical college student has zero cash to spare for a settlement, let alone to fight back and proclaim their innocence if they do get accidentally snagged? It's a disaster waiting to happen, and woe betide any Uni who not only finds that an innocent student was hit, but that said student fights back... because now (IIRC) the RIAA and UW may wind up on the wrong end of a lawsuit. (Unless the Uni would be willing to help defend any provable innocent students who accidentally get targeted).

* yes, I said notoriously insecure. When one can literally sit across the street from a major university in Utah (I won't mention which) with a Pringles Can rig and get full Internet access in no time flat, it can't be secure... and odds are VERY good that they aren't alone in having such gaping holes in their network.

Your right they should not be pirating but do they deserve to get what the RIAA is going to do? Do we as a society chose to chop off a hand of a thief? No way. Do we as a society want to punish extremely harshly for what is a small crime? No way.

No, you're certainly right there. You'll also notice I carefully avoided ever saying that the punishment actually befits the crime. But nevertheless, it is still a crime and strictly speaking they would have nothing to worry about (regardless of how overblown the punishment is) if they simply didn't pirate.Now, I've said "strictly speaking" because there's still the chance of being hit by the "whoops, missed" prosecution campaign the RIAA runs. These are certainly cases where the university itself needs

they would have nothing to worry about (regardless of how overblown the punishment is) if they simply didn't pirate.

Yes [slashdot.org] they [slashdot.org] would [slashdot.org], strictly speaking. The RIAA has apparently very little concern for whether or not it hits actual copyright infringers, and everyone it hits still has to show up in court and in the press, or settle out of court for an amount of money they very probably don't have to spare.

According to your link, unauthorized reproduction or distribution of $1000 worth of works in a 180-day period crosses the line from civil infraction to criminal activity. That's not an "extreme case". Many pirates cross that line all the time. Hell, many people simply leave their music collection (which they mostly received thru piracy) open to P2P uploading 24/7. Even if your collection is only worth one dollar, 1000 people obtaining it over P2P during a 180-day period becomes criminal on your part (not theirs), since you've distributed $1000 worth of works.

Actually, I was at my daughter's "pre-orientation" for college last week, and at the IT presentation, I was asking "Are you doing port blocking/packet shaping?", "What's your policy on RIAA threats?", "How many laptops were stolen last year?", "Are you using static IPs in the dorms?", etc., etc., etc. After that, I had enough information to properly warn my daughter what to expect, and what not to do.

It used to be that when shipping a daughter off to college, one had to warn her of things like date rape and underage drinking. Now it seems like son and daughter alike are getting fucked and all the pepper spray in the world won't going to fend off the rapist known as the RIAA.

After that, I had enough information to properly warn my daughter what to expect, and what not to do.

While I think the old model of the music industry is dieing and mp3s will eventually all be free, you already had that information before you went to the presentation. "Listen kid, every band signed on to a RIAA label is backed by rabid lawyers. The bands that made the music have a right to decide what to do with it, and they chose to sign on to labels that sue fans. Don't buy or steal their music. Even if you don't get called into court there is no sense in supporting a band that would allow their management to abuse their fans. If you want music to be free support and listen to free music."

You don't have to be so harsh on the bands.. I have an MCSE cert, that doesn't mean I get together with steve balmer on the weekends and shoot penguins. There are many musicians that are truly brilliant that do studio work for major labels. If i were a good enough musician, i would love to have the opportunity to work with a lot of other musicians without committing to a band. When it comes to the groups that sign, I doubt many of them have the slightest clue about the politics. Those that do are most likely "coached" into the mindset of "downloading is stealing." A producer can have a hell of an impact on a young musician. It's like a father figure. I've been in a band that was approached by a major label, and I have to say, if the front man didn't end up getting too strung out on coke, there's a good chance I would have ended up playing in one of those bands that "chose to sign on to labels that sue fans." When you drive a beat-to-shit Chevy van that you bought with money from working in a butchers shop, the prospect of getting the largest paycheck of your life looks pretty damn good, no matter what your ideology.

Those of you calling colleges "spineless", would you rather the kids were blindsided by the legal system instead?

I would rather have the University give the students a head up and tell them that the University is doing all they can to help the students, instead of aid the music industry. The University should look after their interests: the students.

I would rather have the University give the students a head up and tell them that the University is doing all they can to help the students, instead of aid the music industry. The University should look after their interests: the students.

Why do you think the university would aid the students? The students are not employees of the university; at best, they can be considered customers, but even then the school has no obligation to legally defend them if they are sued for actions that are not officially sanc

Copyright infringement isn't criminal matter, it is a civil violation.

Your line of thinking reminds of the people who say "Well, you should let the police search your home without a warrant if you have nothing to hide."

The University's job isn't to assist a private corporation nor "hide" anyone. If there is a civil violation, it is the RIAA's job to demonstrate who did it, or get a subpeona for the information. If they can't get a subpeona, then that should tell you something.

The University's job isn't to assist a private corporation nor "hide" anyone. If there is a civil violation, it is the RIAA's job to demonstrate who did it, or get a subpeona for the information. If they can't get a subpeona, then that should tell you something.

Maybe you should have actually read my initial post.

Most universities, including the one that I work for, do just that. We forward these letters from the RIAA on to the students, but we do _not_ reveal any information back to the RIAA without explicit legal action. This is not only what you're suggesting, it's standard procedure for any institution of higher education that I'm familiar with.

(Sorry if I sound a little strident, but I'm chafing at all of the "Universities are pussies selling out to The Man!!" rhetoric around here whenever this comes up. I'm not wearing jackboots, I'm not kicking down doors, but I'm also not going to defy a judge so that you can download free Usher tracks.)

But that's not what the UW letter says. From the letter, which was posted by an AC to this thread:The RIAA is now sending colleges and universities a letter for each instance they find of a student illegally downloading material from the internet and requesting the university to identify the individual student and forward the letter to him or her.

Emphasis mine.

The way I read it, the RIAA is requesting that UW itentify the students, and the university decided that it will. Obviously, they are straying from

So, in full disclosure, I am a human embryonic stem cell (huESC) researcher at the University of Washington.

Let's say Focus on the Family writes a series of letters to the University accusing a "John Doe" embryonic stem cell researcher at the university of violating federal restrictions on the creation of new lines. Mind you, they've shown no real material information that any individual has violated the law, just blanket accusations with flimsy identifying information.

They say to the University "give us personal information on every human embryonic stem cell researcher at the University or we'll subpoena that information."

The University replies: "Well, we can't roll over that easily. Send us letters demanding that the recipient contact you or suffer severe legal concequences, and we'll forward them to everyone working on human embryonic stem cells here. Then you'll get your identifying information, and we'll be off the hook."

Let's be clear about what's being done here. From the original e-mail:

The RIAA is now sending colleges and universities a letter for each instance they find of a student illegally downloading material from the internet and requesting the university to identify the individual student and forward the letter to him or her...
The University has been notified by the RIAA that we will be receiving a number of these early settlement letters. After careful consideration, we have decided to forward the letters to the alleged copyright violators. We do so primarily because we believe students should have the opportunity to avail themselves of the settlement option if they so choose.

Whether the University is directly identifying students to the RIAA or indirectly does so by sending the students a letter directing them to contact the RIAA, the net result is the same.

Do people not understand why academic institutions MUST behave differently than this?

What if the coal industry threw letters at climatologists?

What if the junk food industry thew letters at obesity researchers?

The University has access to a massive collection of very personal information, including detailed financial, academic and medical records. It is essential for the primary mission of the University to protect its members against angered outside forces. Without this commitment to protect academics, we'll never be able to get honest answers to questions.

The proper course was to:
1. Not save identifying information in the first place
2. Tell the RIAA to come back with their own damn identifying information.
3. Send letters instructing students to not self-incriminate themselves
4. Provide proper legal services than (borderline negligent) legal advice to settle to any and all demands.

Given that buying knives is illegal[1], I'd rather the colleges assisted law enforcement in catching the assmunches pushing up prices for all legitimate customers who actually pay for their kitchen utensils.
But that's just me, and I know no one on Slashdot will agree.
[1] Please, no one be an ass and point out legal knife uses. You know that's a fraction of knife usage and not what I'm referring to.

Just because it's illegal doesn't mean the RIAA needs to force the kids to pay thousands of dollars (nowhere near the value of the music)...

Back in the print days the chance of catching any particular copyright violator were pretty slim (much like today). In compensation, congress set the penalties at draconian levels, so they would serve as a deterrent despite the low chance of getting caught.

The issue with the RIAA is not that they're playing whack-a-mole with a big hammer. The issue is that their aim

Yes, but in this case it IS wrong. Regardless of whether you are depriving the record companies of money (not entirely disagreeable) you are actually depriving the talented people who wrote and performed the music too. That's utter crap, and I see you're too damn frightened to post that behind an actual identity (mostly because you're opinion is bullshit).

Would that mean most if any students that are allegedly copying music will have to pay $150K for each infringement? Looks like there will be some students that will have to pay for the rest of their lives over copying music.

<sarcasm> Isn't it wonderful our courts are trying the real criminals instead of the murderers?</sarcasm>

that they identified the correct students? If I were a student who is struggling just to pay tuition and rent, I'd panic. And if the University misidentifies a wrong student, then is it liable for harm done to the student? This seem highly irresponsible to me.

If the UW didn't do so, the industry would file a lawsuit against a John Doe or Jane Doe and subpoena the university for the person's identity, Godfrey said.
"This isn't a matter of the university cooperating with the recording industry," he said. "We all concluded that to not pass these along to our students would be unacceptable and more costly to them."

They are not giving the students names to the RIAA, just letting them know the RIAA intends to file suit if they dont settle now. They are actually giving those receiving these notices time to find representation and legal help.
I would prefer having a few weeks to discuss my options with a lawyer rather then get hit with a summons out of the blue.

I RTFA'ed, and there is a big question that still remains unanswered: why is the University of Washingtonrecording this information in the first place? I know that many other universities committed to studentrights simply do not record the DHCP lease information, so it cannot later be subpeonaedby the likes of the RIAA.UW is indeed aiding and abetting the RIAA here, by keeping records they need not be keeping.

To the folks who made the Nazi analogy: It is a historical fact that the Nazis were greatlyaided by

To the folks who made the Nazi analogy: It is a historical fact that the Nazis were greatly aided by careful records on religious affiliation kept in the countries they invaded. That's why most European countries (namely the ones invaded by the Nazis) do not, in fact, are legally prohibited from, keeping track of the religious affiliations of their own citizens.

They were also aided by the careful records on gun ownership. The blitzkreig motorcycled up to the local cop shop, grabbed the records, and went house-to-house collecting guns. Then any resistance movements had to start from scratch with stolen or air-dropped weapons. That's why many gun owners - especially those who were involved in WW II or know its history - are so dead-set against gun registration databases.

The UW admins keep this information because otherwise it is hard to find the guy that trying to DOS your mail server into oblivion. Student networks are notorious for having internal attackers of all different kinds. If you were an admin you'd want to be able to put a finger on the students too.

Take away the anonymity and people start to behave in a civilized manner. That's just how things work.

The UW admins keep this information because otherwise it is hard to find the guy that trying to DOS your mail server into oblivion. Student networks are notorious for having internal attackers of all different kinds. If you were an admin you'd want to be able to put a finger on the students too.

That's crap from start to finish. Network administrators have these systems in place due to federal wiretapping laws and clueless pressure. All networks have a DoS problem and you won't get a finger on it with h

They are not giving the students names to the RIAA, just letting them know the RIAA intends to file suit if they dont settle now. They are actually giving those receiving these notices time to find representation and legal help.

Not true.

They are aiding the RIAA in their extortion scheme by forwarding the extortion letters, when they do not need to do so.

As with any other ISP, if they don't forward the letters when asked, the RIAA's next step is to file the John Doe suit, subpoena the records, and obtain the

Sounds to me what he's saying is: the RIAA don't have much of a winning case for a John Doe suit and they know it, so they might start one but abort it immediately, simply as a way of getting the discovery privileges which come with a lawsuit just long enough to obtain the names of certain students. Then they'll cross off the list the names of the students whose parents are rich, and sue the poorer students individually.

But if the university passes along threatening letters to its poorer students, then th

students identified... as suspected file sharers. "The notices say offending students have 20 days to settle with the association by paying it about $3,000 to $5,000 or be taken to court without possibility of a settlement."

Guilty until proven innocent. In related news: Kneecaps may NOT be substituted in lieu of payment.

what would happen if half or more of the university students suddenly decided to withhold from paying their tuition? I mean, if there is 1% withholding, they university kicks them out. But half or more? It would kill them. It is certainly a lot better than burning down a building like was done in the 'nam days.

The problem with boycotts is always one of organizing everyone to go along with you. It's virtually impossible. You might as well organize a REAL revolution.

Everyone will nod their heads and say "oh yeah, I agree". But no one will actually refuse to pay their tuition because, after all, they're grateful to have gotten into the university in the first place and won't want to take the risk.

For anyone who's interested, here is the e-mail the UW sent out:
Dear Student:
I am writing to inform you of a development that could become a
serious issue for some of our students--the law governing downloading and
sharing of music and video from the internet. Under copyright law, it is
illegal to download or share copyrighted materials such as music or movies
without the permission of the copyright owner. The Recording Industry
Association of America (RIAA) in recent years has taken an aggressive
approach to stopping this illegal downloading and file sharing. This has
put many students at the nation's colleges and universities at some legal
risk. I write first to caution you against illegally downloading or
sharing files. Your actions when you do so are traceable and could result
in a significant financial penalty to you. Second, I want to inform you
about a new process the RIAA has initiated and the University's role in
this process.
The RIAA is now sending colleges and universities a letter for
each instance they find of a student illegally downloading material from
the internet and requesting the university to identify the individual
student and forward the letter to him or her. The letter, called an
"Early Settlement Letter" notifies the student that he or she has 20 days
to settle with the RIAA by going to a designated website, entering
identifying information, and paying a set amount, usually between $3,000
and $5,000, but sometimes considerably more. If the recipient chooses not
to settle, the RIAA will file a lawsuit and the offer to settle for the
amount stipulated is no longer an option.
The University has been notified by the RIAA that we will be
receiving a number of these early settlement letters. After careful
consideration, we have decided to forward the letters to the alleged
copyright violators. We do so primarily because we believe students should
have the opportunity to avail themselves of the settlement option if they
so choose. Not forwarding the RIAA letter to students could result in
their being served with a lawsuit, with no chance to settle it beforehand.
The University is unable to provide legal services to students who
have violated copyright law through illegal downloading or sharing. If you
receive a letter from the RIAA, we encourage you to engage a personal
attorney. If you have questions, please let us know.
We know how tempting it is to download music or movies and share
files with your friends. But you need to know that it is illegal to do so
and that the consequences can be severe. Please inform yourself of the
requirements of the law and please obey it. Otherwise, it may prove costly
for you and your family.

At my school, the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, MAC spoofing was rather common. The reason for this was that university housing gave us 10mbps links, but only allowed us to transfer (up+down) 750MB per floating 24hr window without our bandwidth becoming significantly reduced (That's 10 to 15 minutes of full pipe transfer, FYI). Details here [uiuc.edu]. Of course, this limiting was tied to MAC Address, as each room only had one port to the router. So to circumvent the limiting, people would look up MAC addresses and IPs on the network and spoof their network card to them. This caused weird things to happen when two computers with the same IP and MAC are on the same network, but in essence you could steal someone else's bandwidth. With such a practice in use, how can they possibly say that one person or another was the person that IP+MAC combo belonged to? They have records of what room the MAC was in use in when, but how can they be sure that it wasn't your roommate spoofing your MAC address?

Answer (and I most certainly don't mean this as a troll): They don't give a flying shit.

This is racketeering at its finest. I accuse you of something. You either pay me a large small sum, or I take you to court and you're stuck, win or lose, with likely more than the initial large small sum I would have accepted as a settlement.

I mean, I have a wireless network secured with basic WEP and MAC filtering. Not really that hard to break in, but hard enough to keep random idiot off my network. Who's to say

Its a trap. Don't fall for it. The RIAA has no legal recourse since they don't actually own the rights to the intellectual property. By deciding to comply and pay the RIAA, you do NOT receive protection from being sued by the actual intellectual property owner. Ergo, if you pay, the RIAA will turnover any relevant information to the appropriate owners who may then file suit against you. This is all a ploy to get you to confess that you've done something wrong and provide them with the information they need to ensure that you lose any subsequent cases.

As a student at the UW, this is very disturbing. Housing is tight and almost all rooms are doubles or triples. For sure they can identify which room an IP address is assigned to, but to identify which person in the room was using the connection... There's not a separate port by each bed/desk to identify each resident uniquely; and in some halls there is only one plug. There's pretty much no way without having physical access to the computers or making the students register their MAC address to know which person in the room was making the connection. The only way I can see the RIAA implementing this would be to either send notices to all residents in the room, or by picking randomly. Either case, this is bad for the university and I'm sure there will be some angry students next year.

What's to stop the RIAA from randomly picking a hundred IP addresses and then sending them the "pay up or else" letters, and then collecting a few thousand from some random people who thought they got caught?

...free speech, protect our rights and the war protests at the UW. Ii sort of saddens me to see the management, who must have been in those protests, now lookig for the easy way out. How times have changed.

Not anonymous speech. IF you say something, be prepared to stand up and back it up. Just because you *can* say something does not mean you can say something and will never be found. Just as you have a right to say whatever you want about me, I have the right to find out who you are and confront you about it.

>>protect our rights

Like the rights of the copyright holders? Who protects their rights? Oh yeah, the RIAA does. You do not have the right to distribute copyrighted works without permission of the copyright holder. If you are using bittorrent to download copyrighted music, then you are, at the same time, uploading that same music.

>>war protests

I really don't see how that factors in. I guess if you want to link the military-industrial complex and the Illuminati, then maybe it makes sense.

>>Ii [sic] sort of saddens me to see the management, who must have been in those protests

The things they protested were thousands of times worse. Whites openly killed blacks. The government openly forced young men into military service. Women had few, if any, rights. Homosexuals were harshly persecuted.

We have it pretty good today. It'd be better of people voted, but I digress.

>>now lookig [sic] for the easy way out

How is having you fight your own battle the "easy way out"? A third party comes forward and advises that IP 10.10.10.200 was downloading "Hit me baby one more time" from IP 20.20.20.200 at 11:30 GMT on 1 June 2007. They are requesting the user's contact info for that IP lease at that time.

That's all.

If you want to argue about whether or not you were downloading a "real" copy of a copyrighted song, then you still get to do it in court.

If you want to argue about whether or not you were also uploading that same copyrighted song, then you still get to do it in court.

If you want to argue about whether or not you were the actual owner of that IP at that time, then you still get to do it in court.

If you want to argue about whether or not someone behind a NAT you run was downloading, then you still get to do it in court.

If you want to argue about whether or not the evidence was collected properly, then you still get to do it in court.

The point is that you actually have to stand up as a named person and defend your good name. Mom, dad, and the University will not take care of you for the rest of your life. College is the best time to learn that.

Now, if you want to argue that the legal system is broken, then I'll agree. But, within the confines of the game, the RIAA is playing the hand they were dealt. You must do the same. If you want to change the rules of the game, then get out and vote. If that isn't fast enough, then shoot some RIAA lawyers every time they file a suit.

But, do not, under any circumstances, be mad because mommy isn't wiping your ass anymore...

"I have the right to find out who you are and confront you about it."No, you do not. You have to right to say whatever you want in response. Just because I say something does not give you the right to determine who I am through any means that would otherwise be unlawful.

The "easy way out" remark was made because the UW is giving into the RIAA which is using questionably unlawful means to obtain information about UW's students. It is not unreasonable to expect the college to protect your rights when someone is trying to violate them through the college itself.

All three of those have very limited definitions. All three are *very* hard to prove in court. None of those come into play when the RIAA calls your ISP and asks for the name and address of the person who leased a specific IP at a specific time and date.

While I agree with your sentiments regarding the burden of the UoW to cooperate with legal investigations and the rights of those students to have their day in court, I feel this might be a tad unrealistic and ignoring the history of similar efforts on the part of the RIAA. The students in question are being given a choice: pay up or pay up. There is no real "out" for them. They will give into the RIAA's demands and pay the $3-5000 it is alleged they each owe or they will need to retain a lawyer and pay out the same amount (or more) to have anything close to equal representation in said court.

Whether the students in question are guilty or innocent is no longer an issue where the facet of their financial obligation is concerned. The RIAA has determined these kids will pay and pay they will.

The solution to this quandary is far more encompassing than mere bullying tactics on the part of the RIAA. It involves real problems with our legal system and the carte blanche written to organizations like the RIAA on the fact they have the most resources to lobby their interests.

Truly, this isn't even a matter of whether copyright infringement is justifiable or not or whether these students can claims some kind of "fair use". Put yourself in the UoW's place. Let's pretend you own a small business which has around 30 employees, each of which has access to a computer on your network. I walk in with credentials proclaiming me to be a lawyer for the RIAA and claim to have detected employees on YOUR network downloading illegal music. I present you with a list of IP addresses, times, and alleged network activity gathered. I then demand you provide me with the identities of all those who were on the computer, at that IP, at that time.

Do you cooperate with me? A non-state official, non-law enforcement, and with no warrant for such a search and seizure?

My answer would be "bring me a court order for this particular action and we will talk".

"Downloading music is a form of protest, and the school has given in to the enemy of the students' freedoms because it will save them some money on bandwidth, or so someone has convinced them."

Talk to some real protesters sometime. The people who marched against the Iraq War, or even the Viet Nam War. The brave people who participated in the Montgomery Freedom March. The people who defied orders and sat at the lunch counters in Selma. The ones who have had hoses, dogs, and rubber bullets unleashed at th

While I do agree the "protest" line is BS,I do think we have ALL been robbed.We SHOULD be able to download Hendrix and Joplin and all the great music of the '60s and '70s if we would have kept the copyright laws we had for over a century.But thanks to corporate America "They'll get Mickey Mouse over my dead body!" Our public domain has been raped.As it is now my grandkids will be dead before anything from that era ends up public domain.That is,if they don't just keep adding on until copyrights last forever.

Or perhaps the folks at the University of Washington simply don't feel comfortable using their network as a haven for illegal filesharing. Seriously, if it was my network I would do the same thing. I'd send out a flier to all of the students telling them that the University would cooperate with the RIAA and then I'd watch network utilization drop. There will be some students that are so ridiculously retarded that they continue to use the university network to distribute files on unencrypted networks, but

Actually the students are the ones paying for it with their insanely high tuition rates. They pay more for that access than John Q Public pays for their broadband.

No students = No Money = No School = No Bandwidth.

Schools should have a backbone and tell the RIAA to fuck off. After all the RIAA wont sue something that has money and resources to dedicate to a fight like a school or big company (like schools or the RIAA)

The University of Washington is heavily subsidized by the government. The students aren't paying for bandwidth, taxpayers are paying for bandwidth, and I can guarantee you that they aren't paying for the bandwidth so that college students can distribute the latest pop albums.

Besides, why precisely should the schools get tangled up with the RIAA. The University of Washington has copyrighted material that it wants protected, why should it aid students in distributing someone else's copyrighted materials illegally? I can't believe that *all* Universities, or at least all public Universities, don't do the same thing. When you consider the wasted bandwidth, and the increased likelihood of viruses and other malware that invariably follow online filesharing it is a wonder that this isn't the status quo.

I don't like the RIAA either, but I protest by not listening to its copyrighted material, not by trying to make their material even more popular by distributing its wares.

Not to mention that I'm pretty sure that all the people who donate money to the school for grants, etc., would prefer to see their money actually benefiting eductation rather than funding the university's pissing match with the RIAA. Is copyright violation theft in the same sense as stealing a tangible asset, not really, but should it be illegal, definately. I have no problem at all with U-Dub forwarding these letters to the offending student providing that appropriate processes are followed - the sooner

The University of Washington is heavily subsidized by the government. The students aren't paying for bandwidth, taxpayers are paying for bandwidth, and I can guarantee you that they aren't paying for the bandwidth so that college students can distribute the latest pop albums.

Bullshit.
University of California campuses are subsidized by California. However, we still pay for our bandwidth with our HOUSING costs. I've actually read the budget, have you? I'm sure University of Washington is about the same. Maybe if they used their Computer Labs to download illegal content (which, btw, I think would be a minority) that's subsidized. But ten to one odds the majority of these letters will go to students living in Campus Housing where THEY pay the costs (or their parents, if you want to nitpick).

While you are correct that tuition fees only make up 12% of the budget, according to the (PDF) University of Washington's 2006 Report (PDF) [washington.edu] (Page 20), State funds amount to only 11% (capital and operating combined).

The students aren't paying for bandwidth, taxpayers are paying for bandwidth, and I can guarantee you that they aren't paying for the bandwidth so that college students can distribute the latest pop albums.

As another poster mentioned, students also pay for internet access. At U of W, it would appear to be included with rent [washington.edu].

You hit the nail on the head when you said BANDWIDTH but everything else is irrelevant.

Likely, the school is pissed abotu how much of their bandwidth is being used for piracy and is stringing up a few students in order to curb the activity. I don't think they care the slightest for the students, it's just a matter of cutting costs.

From TFL: "The University is unable to provide legal services to students who have
violated copyright law through illegal downloading or sharing. If you receive a
letter from the RIAA, we encourage you to engage a personal attorney."

The University will be busy enough providing legal services (and temporary network admin staffing) to itself. AFAIK, any student who says "sue me" can claim "it wasn't me" and depose the university staff who identified them to pick apart their methodology. And if they find any flaw in the methodology, they can sue the University.

IMHO, these should be required reading for anyone who is hit by these lawsuits. If you want the real condensed version, it is this (from the second link):

"The best advice if you are sued by the RIAA is to quickly retain a lawyer who has some experience dealing with RIAA cases. Having knowledgeable council early on won't stop the process from being difficult, but can give you a better chance of protecting your rights."

I got the latter from the second article. I have no idea if there are defensive legal strategies that any students can employ before they get a letter from the RIAA, but it would be interesting and useful if a skilled lawyer could make the University think twice before just bending over for the RIAA.

> I simply would not be on the campus network unless the school provided privacy> to its users.

This is hard to do. I used to work for a university - they didn't habitually identify users, but for various purposes (hacked computers, viruses, people running misconfigured DHCP servers, finding stolen computers, broken equipment), we needed to be able to identify, at least, where a computer is physically on campus.

In order to do this, we used a number of techniques. If a computer is plugged in to the LAN, then we could see its MAC address. There was a database of which switchport goes to which wall jack and where that jack is. Many times, this is a dorm room - and at that point, it's pretty easy to ID the user, if necessary. Most of the time we didn't - we'd instead filter their MAC so that when they tried to use the internet they'd get a notice (i.e., 'You have a virus. Please reformat your computer.').

But for those times when it was necessary, if we couldn't pin it down by room, we also had a tool which would keep records of where people logged in to common campus servers from. If you're claiming that that MAC isn't yours and we could see that you'd logged into the mail server daily from there... well, that'd be problematic, to say the least.

I'm all for universities protecting their students privacy - but in order to keep everything running, certain measures need to be in place. Sorry.

I dont understand this attitude. The RIAA is just a regular business. If you dont like what they sell dont buy it or copy it. I dont like some channels on TV, I just choose not to watch them. (or record their broadcasts and post them on the internet if you want a better analogy)

no, they are a cartel who have bought favorable laws for themselves. There's big difference, and I resent you saying this power and money grubbing scum is in any way to be treated like normal decent people.

Well, they have protected their IP righs by purchasing perpetual - and unconstitutional - copyrights from a Congress that is supposed to protect the public good. Ergo, pretty much any sympathy they may have had is gone.

So how do you think indie movie companies, small record companies, software companies, etc. should protect their rights then? If you want we can exclude the big RIAA members from this. How should regular companies that thrive by producing copyrighted materials protect themselves when their work ends up on the internet where anyone can get it for free? Do you believe that they should be allowed any recourse at all? Should they be forced to sit back and watch as everyone in the world downloads for free wh

Should they be forced to sit back and watch as everyone in the world downloads for free what they invested a lot of hard work into producing?

They should receive fair compensation, as the Canadian record companies do based on the levy on blank media.The levy is far from perfect: it penalizes people who use CDRs for something other than recording copyrighted music, it doesn't apply to media built in to MP3 players, etc., but I'd still say it's a fair compromise.

Obviously, I can't speak for everyone here -- but my own belief is that government went wrong when they first started treating these infringement cases as *criminal* vs. *civil* matters.

There's NO reason an association the size of the RIAA really needs the government's assistance to get "justice" against infringements on the musical works they hold rights to. The people sharing these songs via p2p, web pages, ftp, or any other electronic method are doing so without any financial compensation whatsoever.

Every time they pursue one of these cases in criminal courts of law, they cost the American taxpayer large amounts of money, using the time of prosecutors, appointed judges, etc. They *could*, of course, opt to "do the right thing" and go after these individuals in strictly civil cases. But that would put the effort squarely on them to build their cases - rather than relying on "boilerplate" complaints and standardized tables of penalties/punishments for criminal copyright infringement that federal courts already devised.

Criminal prosecution should really be reserved for tangible crimes against persons and property.... not relatively "fluffy and intangible" losses due to intellectual property "violations"!

My belief is, if businesses and individuals had to resort to civil remedies for these violations, we'd see much more reasonable and logical outcomes. (EG. A starving college student sharing copies of his/her purchased collection of CDs wouldn't be pressured to "pay back" tens of THOUSANDS of dollars for doing so. Instead, you might see the punishment actually fit the "crime". They might be charged a few hundred bucks, making them rethink how wise it was to offer copyrighted musical works to any and all takers, free of charge. People wouldn't be rushing to condemn the RIAA like they do now, if THIS was the norm.)

So its pretty clear that going after individual copyright violaters is looked down upon on slashdot. I also remember back when napster was big everyone on here was upset that they were getting sued because they werent actually breaking the law, it was just the individual users.

So is it just one group who thinks that indivuals shouldnt be sued and a different group who thinks that the companies should be immune? How should the RIAA protect its intellectual property rights? Is it just a fundamental belief on here that copyright holders should have no recourse against violaters?

I don't think anyone on Slashdot is against the RIAA going after copyright violators it's just how they are going about doing it that bothers people. The RIAA is exploiting the ignorance of the justice system in order to get what it wants. Also, they seem to mostly go after those who lack the ability to adequately defend themselves. Then when someone does try to defend themselves the RIAA tries to have the case dismissed.

The RIAA has shown time and time again that their methodology to figure out who is infringing on copyright is flawed at best. I would have no problem with them going after someone if they brought more to the table than just a screenshot with an IP address or at least were held more accountable for when they are wrong. Their so called expert was anything but and they have sued dead people, minors, and those who have never even owned a computer.

Going after college students is just another extension of this. Lets say the RIAA sends some random IP addresses that they know are in use to a university. These are college students, relatively up on todays technology, what do you think is the probability that they will have one or more songs that the RIAA says they have allegedly downloaded? Pretty darn high you think? And if they don't have all of the songs they just say that they deleted them. Just because they have the songs doesn't mean they downloaded/uploaded them from/to a P2P network. Maybe they made a digital copy of a CD they own. So while you ask how can the RIAA protect its property rights I ask how do I protect my rights?

Theoretically at least they should only be going after people who were sharing copyrighted files on line. I dont see anything wrong with looking for people who are doing this, downloading the files from them, taking a few screenshots as this is happening to document what happened and sending a subpoena to a university. Do you have a better method? How do you think they should be pursuing violaters?

A bunch of screenshots with someone who is willing to claim that they took them and how it all happened is as good as eyewitness testimony. I think your example would be more like if you doctored a bunch of photos of stolen stuff in my house and then testified in court that this all happened. It will always be possible to frame someone. At some level you just have to make a reasonable assesment as to whether witnesses are telling the truth in everything from copyright cases to murders. Frankly, I very s

>>I don't think anyone on Slashdot is against the RIAA going after copyright violators it's just how they are going about doing it that bothers peopleI would bet a lot of people here are against copyright enforcement and will make all kind of excuses (a la "illegal corporate monolopies controlling the record industry have ripped us off so now it is only fair we rip them off"). A lot of people here have called for the abolition of all ip. In fact, for every well rationed argument against the practices

an IP address does not identify a person.They need to have evidences of a specific person committing a crime.

Sadly, there due diligences has been somewhat...lacking.

You ahve evidence os a spicific person ciolating copyright, by all means have law enforcement serve a warrent...oh wait, they don't do that? hmm wonder why? COuld it be that law enforcement might need..say evidence? Evidences the RIAA can not provide? why I believe it is!

So the extort people for 3-5Gs with the threat of 'it will be worse for you

So is it just one group who thinks that indivuals shouldnt be sued and a
different group who thinks that the companies should be immune?

Welcome to democracy. In a democracy, the interests of one part of the population are to be balanced with the interests of the other parts. Ideally, this happens by each part of the population electing representatives and watching out what laws get passed, etc.

Copyright law is not one of the ten commandments: It's just a law that some people made up at the time

Being in the hands of a bunch of nasty lawyers, there is no financially practical way to defend yourself against these lawsuits even thought the evidence would not hold up in court.

The "punishment" is entirely out of proportion for the alleged violations.

Prosecution of things like this should only be handled by government. These are a bunch wild west bounty hunters who have no respect for the rules of evidence and no respect for the rights of those who they investigate.

How should the RIAA protect its intellectual property rights? Is it just a fundamental belief on here that copyright holders should have no recourse against violaters?

I don't think control of information is a right.

In a world where the ability to eat, get basic health care and work (since the before 2 are not rights, this logically should be....) aren't rights, I fail to see why an artificial monopoly on distribution of ideas should be one.

It's clear to anyone with half a brain copyright doesn't exist to "support art and sciences." Why does it exist? It generates profit. Artificial profit, that is. There are not really good being transfered, just money shuffled around and "rights" to use information granted.

The reason this exists? Taxes and control. Moving money = taxes = guns = power = moving money. It's the system modern society is built around. The more null-goods a state can provide, the more power it gets. If governments realize this or not is not clear, but I would be willing to bet some people in the US government get it.

Call me a tin-foil-hat, but this isn't much more a conspiracy theory than "the government is full of *IAA bribed politicians!" and I'd bet a lot more accurate...

One good way would be to get the universities to control illegal activity occuring using their equipment and network. If they detect excessive activity on their network then evaluate what's going on. If the university catches somebody sharing dozens of files, then launch a formal investigation like you would for plagiarism. If someone is caught then they should expel them and put it on their permament record. Mass copyright infringement is a form of academic misconduct like plagiarism, and it is illegal. It

I'm not sure they can defend themselves, frankly. I guess I differ from most of the most vocal Slashdot people in that I believe P2P file sharing (specifically a subset of that - theft) is hurting the music and movie industries, and I believe that stealing content via P2P is morally wrong. That said, I oppose their suits on a number of grounds (possibly more than I can recall off the top of my head); to name a few:

- Even in the worst case scenario - that the downloader and everyone they uploaded to are truly stealing the content (morally wrong), the suits they are bringing are orders of magnitude greater than the theft committed. $3k-$5k out-of-court settlements are nearly universal; tet most people will not upload much more than the amount they downloaded, and even in extreme cases not more than several times what they downloaded. So, if they downloaded a music CD worth $15, they have (assuming all parties are stealing) stolen (or willingly facilitated stealing) 2x-5x that (5x is a bit arbitrary), or $30-$75. Even at the high end of theft ($75) and low end of damages ($3k), that is *40 times* the value of that which was stolen; the other way around ($30 and $5k), it's almost 200 times the value. Can you honestly tell me that you support that? No, really, I want you to type in your answer and click "submit".

- The RIAA has been using downright illegal tactics to bring these cases (see Beckerman's site for details about this). And I'm not throwing the term "illegal" around lightly, like many Slashdotters. I mean they are literally defying direct orders made *by the courts* in order to bring law suits that they would not have been able to bring using purely legal methods.

- The RIAA has been using legal but immoral tactics to bring these cases. Most commonly, the RIAA picks people who they believe do not have the resources to defend against the suit, making the outcome the same, regardless of whether they are guilty or innocent (and short-circuiting the justice system entirely): they have to settle, because they can't afford a lawyer to defend themselves (and if they do hire a lawyer, the RIAA lets them accumulate a sizable bill, then drops the case, so the people will usually have to pay more than the settlement would have been). This is done to build fear by maintaining a perfect prosecution record, to discourage others from sharing files or hiring a lawyer to defend themselves. I know of not a single case the RIAA has won - that is, the case has gone to verdict and the verdict was in their favor; if you know of a single case, click "reply" and link to it, right now. And because they drop cases once it becomes obvious they cannot win them, they have just the same never suffered a loss (though that tide appears to be slowly turning). They care so much about their perfect record that they will continue suits against people who they either knew from the beginning or learned during the trial are innocent, because dropping the case would show that they don't have absolute power, and diminish the fear they seek to create. Do you support each and every one of these methods? Again, that is not a rhetorical question; I am expecting a real answer.

- The RIAA needs to preserve their undefeated status because they cannot possibly catch all of (or even enough to save their business) the true P2P thieves out there, let alone distinguish the thieves from the ones who have not immoral uses (such as seeing if they want to buy and album/movie legally). This is a painful exercise in futility. Their only (false) hope is to try to generate enough fear to make everyone they don't have resources to sue stop sharing. This is *not* working, and cannot in theory work. While it's true that they may be able to reduce (not stop) theft via P2P in the US by going after web sites and individual P2P users, where they have the power of law suits, such suits cannot be brought in a majority of the world because they do not have jurisdiction (let alone the resources to sue that many people), meaning that even fear is outside the

OK, those are fair questions. Note that I am only responding to the points you phrased as questions, I am not trying to dodge the other ones.

"- Even in the worst case scenario - that the downloader and everyone they uploaded to are truly stealing the content (morally wrong), the suits they are bringing are orders of magnitude greater than the theft committed. $3k-$5k out-of-court settlements are nearly universal; tet most people will not upload much more than the amount they downloaded, and even in extreme cases not more than several times what they downloaded. So, if they downloaded a music CD worth $15, they have (assuming all parties are stealing) stolen (or willingly facilitated stealing) 2x-5x that (5x is a bit arbitrary), or $30-$75. Even at the high end of theft ($75) and low end of damages ($3k), that is *40 times* the value of that which was stolen; the other way around ($30 and $5k), it's almost 200 times the value. Can you honestly tell me that you support that? "

I think its reasonable because 75 dollars is not an effective deterrent. If you shoplift a purse from a department store and the penalty is you have to pay whatever the purse is worth it seems kind of pointless doesnt it? Damages should be high enough to deter people from committing the crime, this is a principle that is often espoused by members of our legal system.

"- The RIAA has been using legal but immoral tactics to bring these cases. Most commonly, the RIAA picks people who they believe do not have the resources to defend against the suit, making the outcome the same, regardless of whether they are guilty or innocent (and short-circuiting the justice system entirely): they have to settle, because they can't afford a lawyer to defend themselves (and if they do hire a lawyer, the RIAA lets them accumulate a sizable bill, then drops the case, so the people will usually have to pay more than the settlement would have been). This is done to build fear by maintaining a perfect prosecution record, to discourage others from sharing files or hiring a lawyer to defend themselves. I know of not a single case the RIAA has won - that is, the case has gone to verdict and the verdict was in their favor; if you know of a single case, click "reply" and link to it, right now. And because they drop cases once it becomes obvious they cannot win them, they have just the same never suffered a loss (though that tide appears to be slowly turning). They care so much about their perfect record that they will continue suits against people who they either knew from the beginning or learned during the trial are innocent, because dropping the case would show that they don't have absolute power, and diminish the fear they seek to create. Do you support each and every one of these methods? "

You claim that they go after people who cant afford to defend themselves, but I think it has been well established that they have no idea who they are going after when they first send out their letters. I am not entirely certain that your claim that they continue to pursue cases they know are erroneous is correct. If it is, then no of course I do not support that. But I do believe they have every right to pursue the basic idea of sueing people who unlawfully distribute their music.

All this being said, I am not a huge fan of the RIAA in general. I think it is regrettable that the success of an artist is primarily determined by getting 'signed' by a label. But copyrights are basically a good thing, and is your copyright is being violated then I do believe you should have legal recourse. And that should not be revoked just because it is happening on a large scale or because your company is less popular. And frankly, everyone who makes their living by producing copyrighted material (Like me, I am a software engineer) is benefiting from the RIAA's actions, whether they want to recognize it or not.

Okay, here goes:the RIAA have been acting like a bunch of assholes for a decade now, both the organization itself and the member labels. They have pissed away any good will they could have had. The Napster thing, their assault on fair use, bullying tactics, subjecting us to that bitch Hilary Rosen, support of the DMCA, eternal copyrights, annoying DRM, et cetera.

We don't like them. Even those of us who support some form of copyright pretty well hate the RIAA/MPAA. It's like the SCO case: They come across as

Is it just a fundamental belief on here that copyright holders should have no recourse against violaters?

No, but there is a problem with the system as it presently exists. The protection of intellectual property was orignially enshrined in the Constitution as a *limited* (not as Jack Valenti was fond of saying, "infinity minus one day") term of protection, and therefore profit, for the creator in exchange for the public receiving the fruits of that idea when it entered the public domain, thereby "promot